Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker Essay

Companies today argon designed in some focus, at some level, to develop individuals either for their hold saki, the companys sake or hope in full for both. The team has rick a sophisticated structure. I t is finely engineered, hold to a high standard, and when running smoothly it is highly productive (Cole, G, A, 1997 63).It provides an environment in which energy dig the bounce be maximised towards corporate needs, which in any case bothows the individual to satisfy his or her own needs within grow, preferably than only outside of it. So often seemingly dull unimaginative and uncreative employees surp boot out their companies when they announce the depth of their energy outside lop. However it is the corporate attitudes (Legge, K, 1995 104) that stifled them, and when waived companies recognise they grant a pond talent, a wealth of resources, at their fingertips. authority has been in the forefront of forest improvement efforts (Cole, G, A, 1997 23). Several busine sses ecumenical control been and still argon currently closely watching quality the ability to produce crack and distinguished unspoilts and attend tos to meet customer needs. The commitment to quality today is very em tycoon in service industries, non-profit governing bodys, government agencies, and educational institutions (Mabey at el, 1998 48). Total timbre, similarly k this instantn as Total Quality counseling (TQM), is seen differently by different lot. authority has been defined in different slipway. Some have claimed it is a fundament totallyy different way of build to stir upher (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 271) and quite different from the traditional fantasy of control (Cole, G, A, 1997 94). Cole (1997) is able to define the concept of authority as an application to n unmatchable managerial roles such as team members. However, he argues there argon several possible recollectings. These flush toilet work from having ontogenyd authority (Cole, G, A, 1997 53) a nd thereof their ability exercise a wider range of choices at work and to be given a much varied and interesting line of credit in the form of argumentation enrichment. At best potency increases individuals discretion over how they do their work. It may also provide additional opportunities for grouping problem solving on operational issues. authorization is seen as ways of giving people much than than luck or power (Mabey et al, 1998 38) to exercise control over, and have function for, their work. It is intended to encourage individuals to office their abilities by enabling them to take decisions. According to Potterfield (1999), authority will be best defined as a way of bestowing upon employees the power to use more judgment and discretion in their work and to enrol more fully in decisions affecting their working lives (Legge, K, 199584).Others be more sceptical. Armstrong (1996) points out that Empowerment, for utilisation, may imply little more than giving empl oyees the opportunity to make suggestions for change (Armstrong, 1996 76). In practice, authority is intended to venthole active employee engagement only so long as it falls within the parameters for which it was selected as a strategy. In most organisations it is steering which defines and adjudicates and ultimately exercises control (Armstrong, 1996 78).The concept of empowerment is based on the effect that to be successful, organisations mustiness harness the creativity and brain power of all the employees not just a few managers (Graham & Bennett, 1995 3). The idea that everybody in the business has something to contribute represents a theme shift in thought subroutine away from the old idea that managers managed and the workforce simply followed orders. The fact that empowerment does represent a radical shift in telephoneing explains why, in many organisations, the initiative has failed.Empowered organizations are composed of charge persons, although it is not necess arily true that a group of empower persons automatically creates an empowered organization. Organizations that are really empowered have moved out of the old paradigm of competition and beliefs in limitation and scarcity (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 291).The face of the contemporary workplace is drastically changing. More and more companies are realising the value of more directly democratic organisational structure (Mabey et al, 1998 23) over the traditional autocratic, hierarchical focussing modes.In contrast to empowered workplaces, disempowered workforce suffers from poor self-esteem, lack of a personal vision and a feeling of hopelessness. These attitudes and beliefs form inner barriers that plosive speech sound growth and proactive development (Legge, K, 1995 63) and manifest in the worker in the form of reluctance to acquit certificate of indebtedness, hesitance to communicate openly, lack of commitment and ownership and, ultimately, in below average performance. Such employees become passive passengers who are more focused on having their personal needs met than on contributing fully (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 82) so that the company nookie grow. Because they feel afraid, uncertain and insecure, they will unconsciously sabotage pertly interventions and approaches. An example of this is the resistance circumspection often experience when implementing a quality counsel system (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 82). In this way employees become a stumbling obstruction to progress instead of much-valued as get dresseds.In companies where managers make a concerted effort to indicate and share power and control, the results are not always impressive (Graham & Bennett, 1995 93). The reason for this is either a lack of understanding of the nature of empowerment, or a greater focus on applying a set of managerial techniques than on creating conditions that are essential for empowerment to thrive.Where empowerment does not work it is because people do not think it done (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 83). To avoid such failures it is important to gain commitment for the senior management team, and then to cascade this down to other levels of management. The hardest group to convince about empowerment are tenderness managers (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 92), because it is their jobs that are most likely to be affected. It is because these managers often have the most to lost that they may have a tendency to undermine or delay implementation of a new policy.The implementation of empowerment in organisations instead of the traditional hierarchies doer a flatter organisational structure (Cole, G, A, 1997 57), which canful give rise to considerable resentment and individual resistance. at that place are, naturally, many problems that can arise in the empowerment process. galore(postnominal) workers may resist these new responsibilities (Mabey et al, 1998 23) they in fact like having their decisions made for them and will resent the wasted burd ens (and work).There still may be those workers who resent the implications of greaterself-direction, possibly even arising from an obvious fear. There is an interesting theory underlying this reaction. Maslow has called this the Jonah Complex, the fear of ones own greatness (Maslow, 1971 34). objet dart Maslow discussed this term in a more mystical, spiritual context, it is associated as a sort of classic block to self-actualisation. Since empowerment speaks to the same sort of needs as self-actualisation, it could be drawn that there is the possibility of a collective sort of Jonah Complex at the heart of many conflicts in organizational transitions.Employees may also be cynical and suspicious of this approach (Gennard & Judge, 1997 235, Hitchcock and Willard, 199527) as another way to get more work out of them for less money. However allowing employees to take an active part in the change process from the very beginning, and showing them that their organization is truly changing will remove some of their wariness.There is also the danger of the employees feeling too empowered (Legge, K, 1995 57) in feeling so independent of other facets of the organization that there might also be troubles in transitioning to teams.Empowerment supports organisational objectives at the expense of the individual worker to speed up the decision making processes and reducing operational costs (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 293) by removing un needful layers of management such as round functions, quality control and checking operations. In retrospect empowerment is usually advocated to release the creative and innovative capacities of employees (Armstrong, M, 1996386), to provide greater job satisfaction, motivation and commitment and giving people more responsibility alters employees to gain a great sense of achievement from their work therefore. The reasons for empowerment emerging as a concept for our sequence (Armstrong, M, 1996385) is the need to generate energy release i n employees by providing them with grotesque leadership and a supporting environment and by treating them as a valuable asset to be invested in kinda then as a cost despite the fact that organisations are drive by profit generating, cost reduction and market pressures.Empowerment at workplace level has greater justification for management in HRM terms (Beardwell & Holden, 1994582). way needs to decide how much power to delegate to employees season controlling their levels of creative energies and at the same time not undermining managerial prerogatives (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 582). TQM (total quality management) suggests a system whereby worker empowerment is restricted very much within the boundaries set by the management (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 582).Training can provide an opportunity to empower and motivate employees (Honold, L, 1997). Empowering workers in this small way (i.e., roll the training sessions) during the actual implementation of the organizational change ca n provide workers with a small grad of control over what is essentially a change in process over which they have no control.Empowerment can be argued as an objective in its own right as a mode of extending worker satisfaction (Gennard & Judge, 1997 211). This can be related to the concept of Quality of go bading keep (QWL). It refers primarily to how efficiency of performance depends on job satisfaction, and how to design jobs to increase satisfaction, and therefore performance. The early mental basis of QWL and of justifications of empowerment relating to increased worker motivation was Herzberg (1968). Herzberg developed a theory called the two-factor theory of motivation.Herzberg argued that job factors could be classified as to whether they contributed primarily to satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 64). There are conditions, which result in dissatisfaction amongst employees when they are not present. If these conditions are present, this does not necess arily motivate employees. Second there are conditions, which when present in the job, build a strong level of motivation that can result in good job performance.Management very rarely discusses the practical problems in attempting to apply empowerment through quality management (Mabey & Salaman, 199734) therefore employee views and feelings are unheard. The argument in supporting quality management requires an increase in workers skills and results in genuine employee empowerment (Mabey & Salaman, 199734). However, in contrast to the optimistic approach is the argument that empowerment through quality management results in the increasing subordination of employees in re acquire for little or no extra reward(Mabey & Salaman, 199735).Recently, empowerment has become an important gentleman Resource Management tool (Graham & Bennett, 1995 93) in many organisations. It has been portrayed as the ultimate tool to access unleashed potential and help leaders get the best from their people. In reality, however, organisations that are trying to empower people may be fighting an acclivitous battle. Managers who harbour a fear that affirmative action may jeopardise their jobs, may be more worried about keeping their jobs than about empowering others.According to Maslow (1998), people need a sense of self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and responsibility (Legge, K, 1995 221) to continue to function in a healthy, growth-motivated way. When placed in an environment where any or all of these qualities are removed from them and they are instead forced to submit to anothers will and think and act under constant supervision (Legge, K, 1995 221), their sense of esteem and self-worth is robbed from them.The implementation of empowerment can be used successfully as a HRM tool as it provides a competitive advantage ensuring organisational natural selection (Mabey & Salaman, 199725) and at the same time protecting employees jobs. However, employees maybe compelled to work harder and more flexibly for their own good (Mabey & Salaman, 199725) otherwise they might be made redundant for the greater good.The aim of empowerment is to enable employees to actually have to deal with problems to implement solutions quickly and without recourse to supervisors (Gennard & Judge, 1997 71) and or higher levels of management. This is increasingly necessary as large and bureaucratic organisations delayer (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 91) management hierarchies in the search for administrative efficiency and lower costs.Employee empowerment is a very important aspect when considering human resource management. The failure of employers to give employees an opportunity to introduce in decisions affecting their welfare may encourage union member ship (sparrow & Marchington, 1998 53). It is widely believed that one reason managers begin employee involvement programs and seek to empower their employees is to avoid collective action by employees (Cole, G, A, 1997 83). Employee empow erment offers the employers and the employees the chance to be on the same level, so to speak. Empowerment allows them to help make decisions that affect themselves, as well as, the company. Basically, through empowerment, employers and employees are in a win-win situation. The employees feel like they are needed and wanted, while the employers gain satisfaction through their prosperity (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 64).Employee empowerment can be a powerful tool. The now advanced leadership style can increase efficiency and effectiveness inside an organization (Graham & Bennett, 1995 13). It increases productiveness and reduces overhead. Overhead expenses are those needed for carrying on a business, i.e. salaries, rent, heat and advertising (Mabey & Salaman, 1997 39). It gives managers the freedom to dedicate their time to more important matters. Managers can highlight the talents and efforts of all employees. The leader and organisation take advantage of the divided up knowledge of worke rs (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 64).Managers at the same time develop their own job qualifications and skills attaining personal advancements (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 38). Empowered employees can make decisions and suggestions that will down the line improve service and support, saving money, time and disputes between companies and their customers (Gennard & Judge, 1997 291). Empowerment of qualified employees will provide exceptional customer service in several competitive markets therefore it will improve profits through repeated business (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 76). Customers prefer to deal with employees that have the power to manage arrangements and objections by themselves, without having to frequently inquire of their supervisors (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 76).Empowerment is a strong tool that will increase revenue and improve the bottom line (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 280). Empowerment is also the best way to promote a good long-lasting employee-customer relationship (Sparrow & Marchington, 199832). Empowerment also brings benefits to employees. It makes them feel better about their inputs to the company it promotes a greater productivity, and provides them with a sense of personal and professional balance (Cole, G, A, 1997 91). It exercises employees minds to assure alternative and better ways to execute their jobs, and it increases their potential for promotions and job satisfaction. It results in personal growth (Mabey at al, 1998 174) since the whole process enlarges their feelings of presumption and control in themselves and their companies.It is a process that makes workers utilize their full potentials. This enables them to stay behind their decisions, assume risks, come in and take actions. It is a win-win situation (Wilkinson, A, 1998) customers benefit from sharp employees organizations benefit from satisfied customers and sharp employees and employees benefit from alter their confidence and self-esteems.Benefits come with changes in the or ganizations culture itself. Benefits require changes in management and employees (Mabey at al, 1998 54). For empowerment to succeed, the management pyramid (Mabey et al, 1998 54) must be inverted. Old-fashioned managers must take a timbre back and for the first time serve their subordinates and give up control. Old-fashioned employees must also checker to changes. They could see empowerment as a threat (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 147), especially if they became use to the convenient old style of management structure where the rules and decisions always came from above (Legge, K, 1995 94).Employee involvement and participation schemes are to enhance job responsibility (Legge, K, 1995 24) by providing individuals with more influence over how they perform their tasks (employee empowerment). Each individual can make a personal decision on how to perform his or her task instead of being instructed on how to do so by management. When employees are involved, they have some influence on how th ey perform their job. This in turn is likely to increase their contentment with the job (Mabey at al, 1998 134), the probability that they will remain in that job and their willingness to except changes in the task that make up the job. Individual employees are more likely to be effective members of the workforce (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998 76) if management taps into their knowledge of the job by seeking their opinion on how the job should be performed and how it can be organised better.For employees, the greater empowerment and control given to frontline staff and to their teams has meant a great degree of freedom than ever before in controlling their own working lives (Sparrow & Marchington, 1998166).The power that managers have, the capacity that managers have to influence the doings of employees and work responsibilities, must be now share with employees (Gennard & Judge, 1997 73) through the creation of trust, assurance, motivation, and support for competitive needs. Work-r elated decisions and full control of the work is being pushed down towards the worst operating levels (Armstrong, M, 1996 58). Self-conducted teams have also emerged, which are groups of empowered employees with no or very little supervision. These groups are able to solve work problems, make choices on schedules and operations, learn to do other employees jobs, and are also held accountable and responsible for the quality of their outputs (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 12)Guest (1987) argued under high commitment management workers would be attached to managements vision, and that management would favour individual contracts over collective agreements as a mean of furthering worker commitment and dependence, thus making unions redundant.Employees who feel they are in a stable work environment will feel more secure and empowered (Cole, G, A, 1997 94). Advancement opportunities and rewards/incentive programs should also be implemented, as they feed into how committed and employee feels t o making positive contributions and whether or not they are recognised for their efforts. Morale, too, provides a good measure of the culture of the organisation. Organisations with a restrictive, secretive environment where information is tightly controlled (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 162) will have less informed less empowered employees. Organisations with a more open environment, where ideas are encouraged from all levels will have a freer flow of information, better-informed employees, and thus higher empowerment.Through the process of employee empowerment, employees feel more valued (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 40) because they are able to participate in the planning process and the decision making process. Empowerment gives employees the opportunity to contribute to the companys overall success (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 40). This helps an employee feel that he/she is truly valued, rather than that they are just a back to be stepped upon by those trying to reach the top. All in all, if the employee is happy with their job, than a paying customer will see that and want to return.Empowerment allows an employee to find new ways to express their creativity (Armstrong, M, 1996 161). Through creativity, employees are able to make sales or legal proceeding an unforgettable and pleasurable experience for customers, thus ensuring the customers return. Employee empowerment can have a profoundly adept impact on the bottom line if used correctly (Mabey et al, 1998 18). Empowerment allocates responsibility to an employee and creates the motivation to take place customer expectations. In order to keep customers for life, employers must empower their employees to make their own decisions.Empowerment gives employees the opportunity to make decisions and suggestions (Cole, G, A, 1997 39) that will down the line improve service and support, saving money, time and disputes between companies and their customers.Empowerment is an aspect, which must be considered in negotiating an effective team contract (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 69) .The team must be empowered to seek and find information across the existing management structures. The communication aspect of empowerment means that the team must be foolly shown where their work adds value to the company, where their effects will show results and where their work fits in with the companys objectives.Organizations wishing to instil a culture of empowerment must find a way of establishing systems and processes that do not restrict employees. By concentrating on what behaviour is considered optimal for the employees and what they do well, management can adapt, develop and change the organizational structure to produce the sought after behaviour (Erstad, M, 1997). Culture changed programmes are commonly promoted (Mabey et al, 1998 132) to increase the power of the worker, through empowerment. However, critics have argued empowerment is a means of increasing work intensity and gaining greater managerial control ov er labour (Brambell, 1995, Legge, 1989).ConclusionWork place attitudes such as praising teams for success and punishing teams for failure are inherent in our society (Mabey et al, 1998 32) where winning and survival have become synonymous. business concernes are installing empowerment into their organisations to give people more responsibility and asking them to test the corporate boundary limits (Graham & Bennett, 1995 91). A t the same time, organisations are asking staff to be more entrepreneurial, and take more risks. It can be argued employees who empower themselves can be called troublemakers and those who take entrepreneurial risks and fail are referred to as failures. The business ethic which condemns failure as a bad thing is going to restrict its best people (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 12), force them to avoid pickings risks that may one day be beneficial and will prevent the team experiencing the excitement of the empowerment which is vital to motivation and team dynamics. The advantages gained through empowerment are numerous. Employee empowerment allows an organization to unleash the vital, untapped forces of employee creativity and motivation to solve business problems (Legge, K, 1995 50). Empowering employee also allows them to make decisions on the spot. This is very important when you work in an industry where you work directly with a paying customer. When employees are empowered, the employer enables them to offer full service to their clients and protect them from the competition. The rewards of empowerment outweigh the risks of losing the employees themselves (Spencer & Pruss, 1992 203). The retail industry is a perfect example.Managers are learning to give up control and employees are learning how to be responsible for the actions and decisions (Cole, G, A, 1997 34). It is fundamental that management shares information, creates autonomy and feedback, and trains and creates independent teams for empowerment to work properly. Managers often p refer not to communicate with employees, and not to share some exceedingly important information (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 247) with them, but an effective leader must have no hidden agendas. They must treat employees as stakeholders for the road of success (Beardwell & Holden, 1994 247). Employees must have a clear vision of success, because if they are not aware of what success means to the company and where the company is heading, there is no way they can feel empowered to help accomplish this success.Empowerment is not something, which can be passed over from management to employees as a pen is handed from one person to another. It is a complex process, which requires a clear vision, a learning environment both for management and employees, and participation and implementation tools and techniques in order to be successful (Erstad, M, 1997).BibliographyArmstrong, M (1996) A Handbook of force-out Management Practice, Sixth Edition, Kogan PageBeardwell, I & Holden, L (1994) Huma n resource Management- A contemporary perspective, PitmanCole, G, A (1997) Personnel Management, Fourth Edition, LettsErstad, M (1997) Empowerment and organizational change,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Volume 9 No. 7Gennard, J & Judge, G (1997) Employee relations, Institute of Personnel & growingGraham, H, T &Bennett, R (1995) Human Resources Management, Eight Edition, M+E handbooksHonold, L (1997) A surveil of the literature on employee empowerment ,Empowerment in Organisations Volume 5 No. 4Legge, K (1995) Human Resource Management-Rhetorics & Realities, Macmillan BusinessMabey, C & Salaman, G (1997) Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell BusinessMabey, C, Skinner, D & Clark, T, (1998) Experiencing Human Resource Management, SageSparrow, P & Marchington, M (1998) Human Resource Management-The red-hot Agenda, PitmanSpencer, J & Pruss, A (1992) Managing your team, PiatkusWilkinson, A (1998) Empowerment theory and practice, Personnel Review Volume 27 No. 1